University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
ScholarWorks@UARK
Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences
Undergraduate Honors Theses
Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences
5-2012
The evolution of rural farming in the Scottish
Highlands and the Arkansas Delta: investments
and inequalities
Madalyn Watkins
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/csesuht
Recommended Citation
Watkins, Madalyn, "The evolution of rural farming in the Scottish Highlands and the Arkansas Delta: investments and inequalities"
(2012). Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences Undergraduate Honors Theses. 6.
http://scholarworks.uark.edu/csesuht/6
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more
information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
The Evolution of Rural Farming in the Scottish Highlands and the Arkansas Delta: Investments
and Inequalities
An Undergraduate Honors Thesis
in the
Crop, Soil, and Environmental Science Department
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
University of Arkansas
Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences
Honors Program
by
Madalyn Watkins
April 2012
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
____________________________________
I.
Abstract
The development and evolution of an agricultural system is influenced by many factors including
binding constraints (limiting factors), choice of investments, and historic presence of land and
income inequality. This study analyzed the development of two farming systems: mechanized,
“economies of scale” farming in the Arkansas Delta and crofting in the Scottish Highlands. The
study hypothesized that the current farm size in each region can be partially attributed to the
binding constraints of either land or labor. In Scotland, it was found that the continuous binding
constraint was the availability of arable land. In Arkansas, the binding constraint began as land,
but experienced points of inflection where the constraint became labor as a result of the end of
slavery and mechanization. Each region’s respective inelastic supplies contributed to the
investments that were used to maximize the output per binding constraint. This study also
explored the idea that those investments related to binding constraints have influenced the levels
of land and income inequality in the Highlands and the Delta today. It was found that the historic
presence of slavery in the south has contributed to the Arkansas Delta’s relatively high income
and land inequality today. The Induced Innovation Model and the Gini coefficient were
employed in the analysis of data pertaining to the respective regions’ agricultural constraints,
investments, and economic inequalities.
II.
Introduction
The Neolithic Revolution (8300-6000 BCE) moved the problem of domesticated food production
and distribution to the forefront of humanity’s concerns (Stein, 2010). Domestication first started
in the Middle East and spread throughout Europe (Sampietro et al, 2007). No longer ruled solely
by the migration patterns or availability of hunted game, a sedentary lifestyle of agriculture and
animal husbandry emerged with its own host of difficulties and developments in Europe (Stein,
2010). Urbanization, economics, farming, and culture are only a few examples of the
developmental maelstrom that occurred during the Revolution. The historic selection of
appropriate farming systems, in particular, involved a complicated set of decisions based on a
variety of factors which characterize the community that they will support. In order to realize
maximum efficiency (high yields, caloric sufficiency, and profit) and environmental health
(sustainability and degree of biodiversity) in food production and distribution the proper farm
size, number of farms, crop choice, and management practices are among the factors affecting
communities when developing an appropriate farming system (Spencer and Stewart, 1973).
Spatially and temporally analyzing empirical farming differences can assist in the identification
of the factors that most directly affect the efficiency, sustainability and suitability of these
systems and therefore, can reveal connections to the nature of a farming system’s progression
and development. Agricultural constraints (natural recourses, labor and technology) also have
played a historic role in shaping farming communities both in Europe and the United States.
Historic constraints from over 100 years ago still affect farming size and output today. Two such
specific examples are the current farm systems in use today in the Arkansas Delta in the United
States and in the Highlands and Isles of Scotland.
In the Scottish Highlands the farming system currently in place is known as crofting.
Crofting is a small-scale food production system that is largely unique to the Highlands and Isles
of Scotland. Typically crofters are tenants of their strips of land, meaning they rent land from a
landowner in exchange for money or crops they produce on the land. Crofters use the land as a
means to supplement their family and income while they are also typically employed by
industries or the public sector, making most crofters semi-subsistence farmers (Hawkins, 2011).
Today, crofting can be seen as a part of the Highland culture by some because of its frequent and
thorough integration into the surrounding community and the small size of the crofts. However,
crofting originally started as an “economy of survival” because of the harsh conditions in the
Scottish Highlands and Isles (Abrams, 2005). The average croft size in the Highlands is around
12 acres of land but in some cases can be as large as 150 acres. The main use of crofts is lamb
and beef production, but crofters continue to endeavor in many types of seasonal vegetable and
fruit production (Logie, 2007).
In contrast, the farming system in the Arkansas Delta in the United States is
predominately large-scale cotton, rice, and soybean production with an average farm size of
around 281 acres of land with some farms as large as 10,000 acres (USDA, 2012). These farmers
are tenants as well, in the sense that approximately 50% of the land is rented, but also serve as
suppliers to large agricultural and food corporations. The ample amount of land and fertile soil,
economies of scale, and high price of labor make ideal conditions for these large, mechanized
farms and, because they are so vast, there are fewer operations in general.
These two regions are both located in high-income countries but historical constraints
have led them in differing directions in terms of agricultural development. A common thread in
agricultural regions such as these has been that as the per capita increases in an area, the farm
size increases and labor demand decreases as mechanization replaces labor (Woodruff, 1994).
Given the historical development of these regions, Arkansas seems to fit this trend of agriculture
consolidation while Scotland has taken a different direction by preserving small scale farming.
This study hypothesizes that certain factors such as binding constraints, investments, and
land and income inequality have greatly affected the formation of current rural farming systems
in the Scottish Highlands and Arkansas Delta. The objective of this comparative study will be to
analyze the historical setting during the time of agricultural development in each area. The
objective is also to explain the limiting factors in each system and in turn analyze how each
region evolved in their distinctive ways. The first hypothesis that this study will explore is that
farm size in both areas has evolved as a result of the inelastic supply of land or labor. In
Scotland’s case the binding constraint is land while in the Arkansas, the binding constraint is
labor. These limitations have stimulated the investment in particular agricultural technologies
that maximize the output per elastic supply. Another hypothesis for this study is that these
investments relating to constraints have affected land and income inequality trends that persist
today, particularly in the United States. The study hypothesizes that the development of large,
mechanized farms, as well as the presence of slavery, has contributed to the southern United
States’ (which includes the Arkansas Delta) level of inequality while the smaller, more frequent
crofts and the grassroots efforts for crofters’ rights has served to combat the same levels of
inequality in Scotland today.
Several indices will be used in comparing factors such as income and land inequality and
technological investments. These include the GINI index and the Induced Innovation Model. The
study will focus specifically on the Arkansas Delta region because of its historical importance
and the fact that it encompasses the majority of Arkansas’ farmland and row crops. In Scotland,
the specified area will be the West Highlands and the Islands where crofting is the dominating
farm system in place.
III.
Literature Review
A. Development and Evolution of the Arkansas Delta Agricultural System
A1. The Establishment of Row Crop Agriculture in the Delta
The earliest farms in Arkansas were in the Delta region around the Mississippi River settled by
French, German, and Anglo-American farmers in the late 18th century (Williams, 2011).
Specifically, the developments started in the Grand Prairie sub region on Crowley’s Ridge, a
region of hilly terrain that extends from southern Missouri into eastern Arkansas. Most early
cultivation was done on the hillsides and included corn, cereals, and potatoes. It was not until
after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, when the United States purchased the region that included
the current state of Arkansas, that cotton cultivation began in the territory (Williams, 2011). The
Delta region is home to the thickest and most productive soils in Arkansas and also some of the
flattest terrain, making it ideal for row crop agriculture (Foti, 2011). Early farmers discovered
this efficiency as the region’s soil produced 50% more pounds of cotton per acre than the state’s
average (Williams, 2011). Cotton price and demand (mainly from the northern US factories and
in Europe) provided incentives for farmers to adopt it as a cash crop. Additionally, slavery,
which was rising in prominence during this time, helped to increase the profitability of cotton by
reducing labor costs (Williams, 2011).
A2. Social and Economic Inequalities in Agricultural Development (1820-1840)
Unequal distribution of taxable capital (including land, livestock, and slaves) created a
significant economic barrier against the Black population (largely slaves) in the Delta of
Arkansas. A study of Arkansas County in the early 1800s (which represented two-thirds of the
current land area in Arkansas) shows a large population and slave increase in the early 1800s.
Between 1820 and 1840 the population of Arkansas County increased from 14,273 to 97,574
with 11% slaves in 1820 to 20% in 1840, respectively. In addition, the percentage of tax payers
who owned slaves during this time jumped 14 percent (Bolton, 1982). This cheap labor supply
resulted in an increase in standard of living for slave holders, but it created discrepancies
between the income equality of those who held taxable capital and those who did not;
foreshadowing inequalities that would arise in the future. The Gini coefficient in Arkansas
County between 1825 and 1840 was 0.78; quite unequal (Yard, 1988).1 To put the extent of this
income inequality into perspective in 2011 the largest Gini value in the world was even smaller
at 0.74 (Namibia) (WIID v 2.0c, 1995). This is an indication that most of the wealth in Arkansas
was held by a small portion of the population. This inequality was largely due to the fact that
African Americans did not have the right to own land and as more wealthy whites acquired more
land and slaves they continued to widen the gap between the rich and poor. In 1825 the
wealthiest 10% of the population in Arkansas County owned 67% of the taxable capital in the
County. This stayed relatively constant over the next fifteen years while the middle class
increased their capital and the lower class possessed little to no taxable capital (Bolton, 1982).
Without the legal support to the ownership of supplies, the lower level, including both poor
Whites and Blacks, had no chance of creating a successful farming system and most land fell
into the possession of the wealthy white population, elevating the plantation system into
prominence. With the rise of plantations and cheap labor, the cotton industry had a perfect
canvas on which to flourish. The factors surrounding the rise in the cotton industry and
plantation agriculture served to enhance the present inequalities of the Arkansas Delta.
A3. The Cotton Boom and Persistent Inequality in the South (1850-1900)
1
The numerical value for inequality, the Gini Coefficient, has a range from 0 to 1; 0 being totally
equal, 1 being the highest inequality possible.
The changes that occurred surrounding the Civil War had a lasting effect on the farm size and
frequency of farms in the Arkansas Delta. The invention and adoption of the cotton gin in 1793
changed agriculture by increasing the profitability of cotton production. Before the invention of
the cotton gin the cost of producing cotton and the labor required to separate the lint from the
seed was far beyond most southern American farmers’ means. The largest plantations were the
only farms that could consider cotton production without looking at an imbalance in inputs and
outputs. The invention of the cotton gin was the tipping point that made cotton production
affordable to many producers in the South. While Phillips (2010) asserts that the invention of the
cotton gin was not the only factor in sustaining slavery in the south, the boom in the industry as a
result of the new technology certainly encouraged the spread of slave labor into the southern
states. In 1860 Arkansas was sixth in cotton production in the nation and had experienced a sharp
increase in the number of slaves. By 1860, 26% of the Arkansas population consisted of slaves
(Ransom, 2010). This can be compared to 11% of the population in 1820 (Moneyhon, 2011).
This population was concentrated mostly in the Delta and Lowlands, with 50% of all slaves in
only 6 counties. It is inevitable that the slaves’ inability to hold land and the wealthy white
owners’ increasing possession of taxable capital would encourage inequality in Arkansas and the
whole of the south even post Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, and the
Civil Rights Movement.
A4. Emancipation and Land Distribution
In the years leading up to the Civil War and the high slave populations the debate over slavery
was becoming heated and action was demanded by anti-slavery parties. From 1850 up to the
Civil War in 1861 the northern abolitionist movement pushed to influence southern farmers into
freeing slaves on their plantations. Although a mass movement of manumission never occurred
in the south as a result of the abolitionists’ efforts, a small increase in freed slaves can be seen
from 1 (.002% of slave population) freed slave in 1850 to 43 (0.0369% of slave population) freed
slaves in 1860 (United States Census Bureau, 1860). As some farmers started to free slaves other
farmers became threatened and raised indignant concern over the competition that these newly
freed men posed. When slaves were first liberated from their plantations they faced the
challenges of cultural and social isolation induced by the slave lifestyle. They naturally tried to
turn to farming as a means of survival, but often lacked the funds, credit and connections needed
for success (Lovett, 1995). Even with these obstacles, Arkansas farmers saw a threat and sought
to bar slaves from entering into the economy through political legislation. By the late 1850s state
legislation passed a law that made it illegal for farmers to manumit their slaves. The governor of
Arkansas, Elias Conway, declared that by January 1st, 1860 all freed slaves would either have to
move to another state or would be forced back into slavery (Lovett, 1995). Naturally, many freed
slaves fled Arkansas to find work elsewhere and avoid being forced back to the fields with no
pay.
In September of 1862 President Lincoln declared all slaves free in the Confederate states
with the Emancipation Proclamation, theoretically adding thousands of new, working members
of society to Arkansas’ economy. In actuality this was a much slower process as the Confederacy
did not abide by the Proclamation until after the collapse of the Confederate government in 1865.
A small proportion of the slaves who were free (most of them had taken refuge with the Union
Army) were given small plots of land (10-50 acres) for subsistence living and cotton production
by the federal government. Mostly concentrated in the Helena, Arkansas, the total income for
Black farmers in the area was forty thousand dollars at the end of 1864 (Lovett, 1995).
Unfortunately, many of those farmers still lacked the supplies and inputs to take advantage of the
opportunity and the progress was short-lived. Seeing this lack of progress with the new working
population the government implemented several programs to aid the plight of the freed man. One
such program involved the creation of the Freedman’s Bureau in 1865 which became the first
federally funded social work program for African-Americans. The purpose of the organization
was to encourage agricultural development in the former slave population and by the end of 1865
the Bureau reported 400 freedmen and their families as holding sharecropping positions where
the tenant would provide labor usually for 50% share of the crops (Lovett, 1995). While the
intentions of the Freedmen’s Bureau were well placed, their efforts failed to give former slaves
what they desired: economic independence. The progress of the population was met with
resistance from many sides including whites that did not find the Emancipation favorable and
African-Americans often took sharecropping positions which left them in debt to their land
owner (Lovett, 1995). In an attempt to further improve the situation of these poor Black farmers
the Southern Homestead Act was signed in to law in 1866. This offered small sections of public
land to farmers, but denied the right to any individual who fought against the Union army in the
Civil War until 1867. Unfortunately, due to more bureaucratic barriers many newly freed farmers
did not file for claims on public land (Williams, 2011). Offices to make claims in Arkansas were
located far from the Delta which was an agriculturally active region of the state with a large
farmer population (Stroud, 2012). By the time Congress amended the Southern Homestead Act
in 1876 only 2.3 of the nine million acres of public land that was set aside had been claimed. The
amendment allowed unrestricted access to the purchase of the public land which resulted in most
of Arkansas’ most productive farmland falling into the hands of seven companies (Williams,
2011). This caused an uneven distribution of land and resulted in inequalities that are reflected in
Delta agriculture today.
A5. Fight Over Drained Lands: Example of Economic Clout of Plantation Owners
More land was brought into cultivation between 1908 and 1921 as a result of a mass drainage
project by the St. Francis Levee District, an organization created by the state of Arkansas in 1883
to manage drainage issues in St. Francis County (Whayne 1993). Around 81,000 acres of land
were drained for cultivation in the Delta region and it was estimated that another 119,000 acres
of land existed in lake beds outside of the drained lands. The state government seized around
96,000 acres by 1914 and a political fight ensued over the distribution and ownership of that
portion of land in Arkansas. There were three groups of people fighting for the rights to this land:
Small land owners with support of the federal government (The Department of Interior),
Entrepreneurs (plantation owners and companies), and the Arkansas State government (The St.
Francis Levee District Board). By the end of the confusing battle it was clear that the
entrepreneurs had the most economic clout and therefore secured the largest proportion, relative
to their population, of the drained land (around 42,000 acres). This showed the continuing
increase of influence of large, centralized farms and only added to the growing land and income
inequality in the Delta (Whayne, 1993).
A6. The Great Migration and Mechanization of Arkansas Agriculture
The grabbing of land by plantation owners and private companies left little space for the average
farmer in Arkansas to make a living and by the 1890s the state saw the emigration of close to
20,000 people; a foreshadowing of the larger exodus to come. This lead to another major
historical event that had an impact on the agricultural structure of Arkansas: the Great Migration.
It is estimated that over 15 million Americans emigrated away from their homes between 1930
and 1970. This mass movement encompassed many different states, but one unifying factor was
that people, especially Black farmers, were not satisfied with the job opportunities in their home
state. By the end of the Migration Arkansas alone lost 1.2 million people which resulted in
several implications for agriculture in particular (Holley, 2005). Farm structure in the Arkansas
Delta experienced a shift in second comparative criteria of this study: degree of mechanization.
It is arguable that this emigration occurred as a result of mechanization; many scholars believe
that it was the development of new technology that pushed farmhands away from the south. The
leaving process, however, started well before the implementation of the tractor, which points to
the idea of replacement rather than displacement (Grove and Heinecke, 2003). The sharp dip in
population resulted in cheap labor shortages that the former plantation system relied upon for
efficient production. Cheap labor was no longer an option for land owners and they had to turn to
mechanization to survive as farm sizes grew larger (a result of the land grabs after the Civil
War). Unfortunately, there were several obstacles to complete mechanization. Peak labor needs
in agriculture include pre-harvest and harvest periods. The mass adoption of the tractor around
the 1920s reduced the need for pre-harvest labor, but harvesting still required many human
hands. This forced landowners away from complete mechanization and into a reliance on annual
tenancy contracts to ensure that they would have the labor they needed when harvest time arrived
(Whatley, 1987). However, the need for human hands during harvest sharply decreased after
World War II as a result of the rise of the mechanical cotton and rice picker, thus allowing the
Delta’s agriculture to completely mechanize and have little reliance on the now relatively
expensive human labor (Whatley, 1987).
A7. The Southern Tenant Farmers Union- Inequalities and Government Policy
Although a significant amount of people migrated away from Arkansas, many stayed because of
they lacked the funds to move and sought to work on large farms for a living. In the 1930s a
biracial union of tenant farmers, sharecroppers, and wage laborers created the Southern Tenant
Farmers Union (STFU). The inequalities that had persisted in the Arkansas agriculture system
must have been great to produce such high risk action from these farmers (Yard, 1988). Between
1934 and 1937 STFU membership rose from 18 people to 11,846 in 5 upper Delta counties
(Crittendon, Cross, Poinsett, St. Francis, and Woodruff). The main concern of the STFU was
social and economic independence. The Union became outraged by the tendency of wealthy land
owners to employ wage laborers or convert existing tenants and sharecroppers to this system.
Wage laboring paid much less than sharecropping, tenancy, or cash renting and was a much less
stable form of work. This tendency occurred primarily because of the Great Depression and
New Deal agricultural restriction programs (Yard, 1988). The Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1933 offered financial incentives to farmers to reduce their cotton production in order to raise
prices. The Soil Conservation Act of 1936 contributed to this as well because of incentives to
produce crops that did not deplete the soil’s nutrients as much as cotton. Around 73 million
dollars in subsidies was directed towards southern farmers between 1933 and 1938, but wealthy
land owners did not stop trying to cut costs. The per acre cost return for wage labor was around
8.93 percent higher than sharecroppers and increased mechanization reduced the cost per acre
even more. This displaced a large amount of labor and it was not until 1938 that land owners
were prohibited from converting sharecroppers into wage laborers to avoid sharing subsidies
(Yard, 1988). The overwhelming trend was towards a “centralized, mechanized and wage labor
dependent economic structure”; precisely what the STFU was fighting to halt. This trend has
continued into the agricultural system of farming in the Arkansas Delta today. Small farmers are
at a disadvantage as the unequal distribution of subsidies, depletion of resources, and
consolidation of land in the Delta continue to exacerbate the challenges of farming. In 1997, 7%
of the largest farms made 60% of the total farm sales in the state (Arkansas Public Policy Panel
[APPP], 1999). These percentages are largely due to government support for high output,
mechanized farms. Nearly 1.5 billion dollars was given to farms by the federal government in
1997, most of it going to the largest operations (APPP, 1999). The continued support for
“economies of scale” farming has contributed to the sustained income and land inequalities that
exist in Arkansas today.
B. Development and Evolution of the Scottish Highland Crofting System
B1. Climate and Geography of the Highlands: An Innate Challenge
The Scottish Highlands, located in the northwest mainland and islands of Scotland, represent a
region that is limited in arable land and has considerable geographical variation. Largely
dominated by acidic, poorly aerated, shallow soils the Highlands do not prove favorable to many
types of crops. Potatoes, turnips, and cereal grains like oats grow well in the harsh, windy,
unpredictable climatic conditions of the uplands of Scotland. Fortunately, the wet climate (4558” of rain per year in the Outer Hebrides, the north-western most group of islands off of the
mainland) and shallow soil lend themselves to healthy pasture land that is well suited for
livestock production, particularly sheep farming (Hance, 1952). However, even this pasture land
is limited. For example, in the Outer Hebrides less than 10% of the land is classified as better
than rough grazing and only 3% of the land is devoted to crop production. This is the extreme
case as The Outer Hebrides are most northern set of islands in Scotland and they are subject to
high winds and soil erosion, but similar constraints effect the whole of the Highlands (Rohde,
2010). A varied, hilly landscape breaks up the arable land and has directly affected farm size
since agriculture emerged in the region. Hills are often utilized in sheep and cattle farming, but
have to be carefully managed to avoid overgrazing and erosion (Hance, 1952). This landscape
has also affected levels of social communication and economic isolation within the crofting
communities, which are groups of families and individuals that rely on the farming of small
strips of land (crofts) to supplement their income and food supply.
B2. The Pre-Crofting Highlands (Early 18th century)
In the pre-crofting era the Highlands had a high population density and low amount of arable
land, contributing to the small size of farm holdings that still persist today in the Crofting
counties. Even a conscious attempt at amalgamation of holdings, which began in 1776, could not
ignore the limiting factor of land. Before crofting townships made their appearance in the second
half of the 18th century the Scottish Highlands experienced a system of farming called runrig. A
typical runrig farm included a group of small families that each rented a portion of a larger piece
of land (Gray, 1952). Individuals in the run-rig system did not rent a fixed area of arable land,
but instead rented a fixed share of the total land on the farm. These shares were annually reallotted to the tenants on the farm in a rotational farming system. Therefore, the farm was
managed on both an individual and cooperative level. Separate holdings were scattered in infield
and outfield areas with continuous cultivation on the former and intermittent cultivation on the
latter. These farms were relatively small holdings, most ranging around five acres. Even within
such a small area, there existed a social hierarchy that was important to the structure of the runrig
system. The joint-tenants rented directly from the landlords. Working under the joint-tenants
were the cottars (farming peasants) and servants. These individuals rented smaller plots of land
from the joint-tenants (Gray, 1952).
In the mid-18th century joint-tenants started to call for improvements to their runrig
system as a result of the influence of improved agrarian methods in Scottish Lowland farming
such as larger scale grazing operations. In the Highlands holdings seemed too small for
significant economic gain and the tenants were becoming increasingly unsatisfied with the
amount of power that landlords held in regards to removal and rearrangement of land. Also,
separate holdings on the runrig farm often varied in size, which caused conflicts among tenants.
A call for an amalgamation of small holdings and a more permanent structure was made by jointtenants across the Highlands in the mid-1700s. Two of the most powerful landlords, The Duke of
Argyll and the Earl of Breadalbane, saw the possible benefits of appeasing these tenants (Gray,
1952). Larger holdings could give farmers more space, incentive, and flexibility to try new
agricultural methods that might increase economic prosperity. Starting in 1776, the two landlords
started disaggregating their runrig farms and reconsolidating lands. By 1800 most of the other
large and many of the smaller estates had abolished the runrig system and adopted the crofting
township structure which consisted of groups of neighboring crofts and houses that were owned
by single tenants and were not rotated annually (Gray 1952).
Although the purpose of this reorganization was seen by farmers as a way to increase their
land rights, the more truthful intention of the change was to increase the size of agricultural
holdings. Certain obstacles presented themselves when trying to achieve this goal and the
structure of a crofting township was revealed to be quite different than the originally planned
amalgamation of holdings. Increasing holding size had the consequence of decreasing holding
frequency as there was a scarcity of arable land and no scarcity in population. For example, on
the Isle of Tiree in 1767 there were 1,676 individuals in residence of which 170 were full tenants
of land. In 1802, after the reorganization of land, there were 2,776 individuals in residence with
319 small crofts and in 1846 there were 5,000 individuals and only 380 crofts (Gray, 1952). This
natural population growth paired with a de-emphasis on emigration served as a significant barrier
to the increase of individual holdings (now called crofts) in the Highlands. Crofting townships
developed into rigid, small, and uniformed crofts that were often arbitrarily assigned by
landlords. What appears clear is that the binding constraint to economic growth in the Highlands
was arable land and property rights. Because of landowners’ need to keep labor on the land, farm
holdings were forced to remain in small, sectioned areas of arable and pasture land; a condition
that is still in place in the Highlands today.
B3. Mass Emigration from the Highlands (Late 18th Century to mid-19th century)
Although emigration from the Highlands in the late 18th century started as a threat from the
grassroots, as an outcry from the tenants, it ended as a violent and forced solution to the growing
population problem. Landlords, whose initial intention of holding amalgamation was linked to
the well-being of their tenants, began to take forceful actions to allow the access to budding and
profitable industries such as kelping, fishing, and particularly sheep farming. In order to
overcome the barriers against increasing holding size many landlords started evicting tenants off
their land. This practice resulted in a pivotal event in Scottish agricultural history: the Highland
Clearances (Mackenzie, 1883). The Clearances occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries. The
term “Clearances” refers to the mass, forced emigration that was enacted upon the farming
population in the Highlands by landlords. Sheep farming, above all other factors, was the main
catalyst for the Clearances. In 1754 Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster in Thurso became the first
president of the British Wool Society funded Board of Agriculture. He was the first to introduce
the Cheviot sheep to the Highlands in 1772, a breed highly prized for its wool. In the coming
years sheep would overtake thousands of acres of grazing land, resulting in the eviction by
landlords of thousands tenants off their rented land and earning 1772 the name Bliadhna nan
Caorach (The Year of the Sheep). An example of the brutality of the Clearances as a result of the
desire to raise more sheep was seen in Sutherland. The Duke of Sutherland employed Patrick
Sellar to evaluate the possibilities for improvement on the estate and in 1814 Sellar ordered that
all hill grazing areas be burned in order to force tenants off the land. With no grass to feed their
cattle, the tenants in Sutherland had no choice but to move off with no compensation
(Mackenzie, 1883). This rise in sheep-farming served to encourage larger grazing units, although
these units were still small in comparison to lowland farms (Turnock, 1967). Sheep farming was
a stable until around 1895 when Australia started exporting highly coveted Merino wool to
Europe and the demand for Cheviot wool decreased. This served to put more strain on the
remaining tenants and influence more emigration from the Highlands (Holland, 1992).
Factors such as the Jacobite Rebellion also had a significant effect on the population
decrease in the Highlands. The Rebellion’s efforts began in 1689 when the last Stewart king,
King James VII, was deposed from the British throne. The fight to restore the Stewart line to
power lasted nearly half a century and ended in the destruction of the clan system and the violent
displacement and murder of thousands of Highlanders. This occurred because the Highlands
were home to a significantly large portion of the King James VII supporters and in an effort to
completely eradicate the Jacobites the British government allowed the raiding of hundreds of
Highland townships. The result was the decimation of a culture where even the language, Gaelic,
became prohibited. These factors, as well as widespread poverty and famine, resulted in the
sharp decrease in population that made the Highlands one of the least populated regions in
Europe (Mackenzie, 1883).
This decrease in population had significant effects on the social and economic climate of the
Highlands and it is important to note the magnitude of inequalities in the region when
understanding how little power the Highland crofters had over their holdings. The Celtic
community of the Highlands experienced an alienation from the “anglicized core culture” in
Great Britain (Knox, 1986). Often seen as barbaric or uneducated, the Celtic Highlanders were
subject to the subordinate role that they filled for centuries and which eventually led to the
allowance of the aforementioned atrocities during the Clearances. Furthermore, crofting
communities were some of the poorest areas of Great Britain. In 1907 Highlanders earned 13%
less income per year than the British average income per year (Knox, 1986). Emigration served
to worsen the economic stability of the region. The mass out-migration of Highlanders to other
parts of Europe and the outer islands resulted in an imbalance of age distribution. Throughout the
19th and 20th centuries the younger population decreased, leaving an older, less active population
in the Highlands. For example, between 1951 and 1961 the Borders of the Highlands lost 6.6%
of their population, leaving the area with only 22.5% of the population under 15 (Scotland’s
population under 15 was 25.9% as a whole) and with 18% of the population over 65 (Scotland’s
was only 10.6%) (Turnock, 1969). This unequal distribution of age served to intensify the
already fragile economic state by causing an increased demand for certain services like medical
care and a withdrawal of others, like small grocery stores or supply depots, because of low
population densities. The economic strain emphasized the need for repopulation. This emphasis
largely affected the crofting policies of the 20th century.
B4. Further Crofting Development and the Crofter’s Act (Mid- to late-19th century)
After nearly half a century of unjustified evictions the remaining crofters and cottars of the
Highlands, most having been forced into livestock farming, began a series of resistances
including occupations of crofters’ land and rent strikes that finally prompted the British
government into action. The outraged farmers formed the Highland Land League which was the
main organizer of public displays that caught the attention of government officials. In 1883
British Prime Minister William Gladstone formed the Napier Commission to investigate the
grievances of the crofters and to formulate a series of recommendations that would increase the
rights of tenants and improve their overall livelihood. The journey began in Breas and Skye (two
Islands off the north west coast of Scotland) and the Commission slowly worked its way through
the entirety of the Highlands, including the Isles. In 1884 the Napier Report was released to the
dissatisfaction of many Highlanders. The Report, although thorough, was seen as insufficient in
inducing any substantial change in the treatment of crofters and it led to more protests and
increased involvement in the Highland Land League (Padget, 1993). As a result, the Crofters Act
of 1886 was framed in order to grant rights of crofters including the right to dispute increased
rent, security of tenure, the right to terminate their tenancies, and the right to compensation when
they were required to amend their holdings (Doughty, 1999). These rights, however, hinged on
the crofting community’s ability to maintain stability and productivity in their farming and side
industries as well as their active and continued participation in government policy (Padget,
1993).
B5. Twentieth Century Crofting Policy and Management
Population in the Highlands continued to decrease in the first half of the 20th century. In 1961 the
Crofting counties had a population of 280,000 while the whole of Scotland had 5,226,000;
approximately 5% of the total population as compared to 20% in 1755 (Turnock, 1969).
Highland development became high priority to the Scottish Government because of the crofting
system’s contribution to economic success in rural areas, to the preservation of natural upland
habitats, and to income and land equality. This realization of crofting’s importance led to the
significant influence on the system’s current structure by government policy and management of
Highland crofting. Governmental development in the Highlands faced several challenges, one
main factor being finance. The Highland Fund was established to raise money, primarily from
private entities, for industry and crofting development in hopes of establishing a stable, regional
economy in the Highlands. In addition, the Highlands and Islands Development Board was
created in 1965 in order to stem depopulation from the region. The HIDB is integral in creating
infrastructure that will allow business investment and development and is a support to
communities that are interested in buying their own land (Hughes, 1982).
The maintenance of the crofting system has gained direct organizational support from the
crofters themselves. In the 1960s the Scottish Crofters Union was developed and later became
known as it is today, the Scottish Crofting Federation (SCF). This group of crofters, the largest
assembly of small-scale food producers in the United Kingdom, aims to protect and promote the
crofting way of life (SCF, 2012). They work together with the Crofters Commission, a public
body of the Scottish Government that regulates crofting activities. Together these two
organizations have influenced the current structure of crofting by ensuring the continued rights
of crofters to a secured tenure and promoting the integral, community aspect of crofting through
communal mapping of croft boundaries (SCF, 2012).
As of 2006 there were 18,000 crofts and 13,000 crofters in the Highlands and Islands of
Scotland. The average crofting household income is £21,000 a year with 30% of that income
from crofting. Around 2000 crofters are owners of their land with the rest as tenants (Harvey,
2006). Farm holding size has increased from an approximate average of 5 acres during runrig
agriculture to an average of 12 acres in 2007 (Logie, 2007). The relatively small size and higher
frequency of farms in the Highlands today contributes to a higher level of land and income
equality in comparison to the system in place in the Arkansas Delta today.
IV.
Methods
The sources cited in this study include a range of readings and data involving the agricultural
development of the Arkansas Delta and the Scottish Highlands as well as studies done on the
historical evolution of the regions. Specifically this study looked to obtain information on
population fluctuations, degree of mechanization, and degree of income inequality within these
regions and how this information would connect to the current farm structures in place in the
Delta and Highlands (size and income inequality today). Two methods were implemented to
better understand how the development of agriculture evolved and the level of inequality in each
region, the Induced Innovation Model and the Gini coefficient, respectively.
A. The Gini Coefficient
In 1912 Italian economist, Corrado Gini, proposed what came to be known as the Gini
coefficient or the Gini ratio (Leathers and Foster, 2004). The Gini coefficient is one of the
primary quantifiers of inequality in research and is a summary statistic of the Lorenz curve (Xu,
2004). The index is used to measure the dispersal of data points of a distribution (income, land,
consumption, etc.). This study used the index to measure income inequality in the Arkansas
Delta and the Scottish Highlands. It should be noted that the Gini coefficient does not speak to
the wealth of a country only how that wealth is divided amongst its citizens.
The Lorenz curve was first proposed by M. O. Lorenz in 1907 and is denoted as Equation
1.
(
) ( )
( ( ))
L(p) represents the proportion of total income of the area that is obtained by the lowest
fraction of the population. F(y) is the cumulative distribution function of income when the
distribution is continuous (Xu, 2004). The Lorenz curve includes the entire income distribution
of a population instead of excluding those incomes above a certain value. When income
distribution is equal (e.g. 50% of the population makes 50% of the income) the Lorenz curve is
represented by an angle of 45 degrees (The diagonal line of equality in Figure 1). Since income
in a population is rarely equal, Lorenz curves lie below the line of equality, as they do in Figure
1 (Grainger and Stewart, 2007).
Figure 1- The relationship between the 45 degree line of equality and the Lorenz curve.
Source: Xu, Kuan. "How Has the Literature on Gini’s Index Evolved in the Past 80 Years?" The
Munich Personal RePEc Archive. The Munich University Library, 2 Dec. 2004.
The area between the diagonal line of equality and the Lorenz curve for a population is
the value of the Gini Coefficient and is a ratio. This can be represented by Equation 2 (Xu,
2004).
(
)
If all the available income in a group is held by one person then the Gini coefficient
would be equivalent to one. As income distribution approaches equality, the ratio approaches 0.
The ratio is often multiplied by 100 and noted on a scale from 0 to 100 (Leathers and Foster,
2004). The Gini coefficient does not simply illustrate the amount of wealth a country possesses,
but instead the equality of the distribution of total income in that country (Xu, 2004). While
certain criticisms exist on the validity of the Gini coefficient (presence of an informal market,
age and wage differences, etc.) it is a widely used and citied inequality indicator.
B. The Induced Innovation Model
First developed by Vernon Ruttan and Yujiro Hayami in the 1960s, the Induced Innovation
Model includes technical change as an internal factor in agricultural development. The model
seeks to explain the historical trends that affect how technology (e.g. labor-saving or yieldenhancing) evolves in an agricultural system to balance abundant resources with binding
constraints (Ruttan and Hayami, 1998). The term “technical change” can encompass many
different oscillating shifts including natural-resource-based to science-based agriculture,
“unimodal” to “bimodal” organization, and low skills and knowledge to high skills and
knowledge (Ruttan, 1998). For this study the specific constraints (inelastic supply) of both land
and labor were considered in the mechanization and farm size of the Arkansas Delta and the
Scottish Highlands. The Induced Innovation Model indicates where money should be invested in
an agricultural system based on the limiting factor. In countries with an inelastic supply of land
like Japan, Taiwan, or the UK agricultural investments have historically been in increased inputs
(fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) and biological technology such as high-yielding crop varieties
(increasing output per unit of land). In contrast, in places with abundant land and a more inelastic
supply of labor like the United States, animals and mechanization have been widely used to
replace the limiting labor factor which increases output per unit of labor (Goldman, 1993).
Different paths of agricultural development have evolved out of the aspiration to increase output
per limiting factor.
IV.
Results and Discussion
The methods of the Induced Innovation Model and the Gini coefficient aided in the
understanding of the trends that have developed during the agricultural evolution of the Scottish
Highlands and the Arkansas Delta. Analyzing binding constraints and investments allowed this
study to explore their relationship to land and income inequalities in an agricultural system.
The Induced Innovation model for agricultural development helps explain how binding
constraints (land or labor) have affected investments in agricultural technology in both the Delta
and the Highlands. The first hypothesis of this study was that farm size in both agricultural
regions has evolved because of different binding constraints a resulting in differing technological
investments. The study hypothesized that the investments would strive to maximize the output
per the factor with the highest inelastic supply. Figure 2 exhibits the historic trends in labor and
capital investments and constraints that helped shape the agricultural development in the Delta
and the Highlands overtime.
Figure 2- Plotted trends of agricultural development in the Arkansas Delta (US) and the Scottish
Highlands (S). Illustrates the relationship between output per hectare and output per worker in
an agricultural system and exhibits the degree of limitation by land and labor.
In the Scottish Highlands land is currently and always has been the binding constraint
given the small amount of arable land. The runrig system in the early 1700s was largely inhibited
by land limitations (S1) and thus the tenants had to extract the most productivity out of their
small holding in order to maximize the output per hectare. The terrain in Scotland served to
break up most of the larger sections of arable land because of hills, bracken, and moorland. The
Induced Innovation Model would indicate that the productivity of the land had to be maximized
which led to the investment in increased land management techniques like drainage, re-seeding,
liming, and bracken control (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002). During the Highland Clearances
(S2) farms were consolidated in the inner Highlands for sheep pasture and tenants were removed
from the land (most emigrated or moved to the islands). The sharp population decrease, however,
was not enough to change the limitation to labor as the amount of land suitable for pasture and
arable crops in the Highlands is dramatically sparse. Only around 4 million acres of the 16.5
million acres of classified farmland in Scotland is actually classified as arable and grassland
(Catto, 1973). The main agricultural investments after the Clearances continued to be
technologies and crops that maximized output per unit of land (S3). Potatoes, barley, turnips, and
oats were the main arable crops grown (Hance, 1952) and lime was a major soil input to combat
soil acidity (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002). The investments resulting from this land constraint
have encouraged small farm sizes in Highlands as the current average farm size is about 12 acres
(Table 1) (Logie, 2007). The geography of the Highlands also still serves to inhibit connection of
arable land, making it nearly impossible to attain consolidation of separate farms.
Table 1. Average farm size of crofts in the Scottish Highlands (2007) and farms in Arkansas
(2012)
Region
Scottish Highlands
Arkansas
Average Farm Size
(acres)
12
281
Source: United States. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research
Service. State Fact Sheets: Arkansas. United States Department of Agriculture, 17 Jan. 2012.
The Induced Innovation Model can assist in understanding why Scotland today has more
income equality in comparison to Arkansas farming communities.2 This study hypothesized that
the investments resulting from historical agricultural constraints have contributed to land and
income inequality trends that continue to exist in the two regions today. More specifically, the
2
It should be noted that more income equality is not equivalent to more wealth per farmer, only that the wealth that
does exist (which could be more or less) has a more even distribution.
study hypothesized that the development of large, mechanized farms and the historical presence
of slavery have contributed to high levels of land and income disparity in Arkansas today and
furthermore that the small, frequent crofts in the Highlands coupled with a strong initiative for
crofters’ rights has served to combat inequalities in Scotland today. Table 3 illustrates that in the
late 2000s Scotland had a Gini value of 0.34 and Arkansas had a value of 0.46, meaning Scotland
was closer to income equality (Grainger and Stewart, 2007). The investments and constraints that
Scotland has experienced, and the resulting farm size, have contributed to levels of income
equality today. Smaller farm sizes allow for greater farm frequency and more opportunity for a
larger portion of the population to own or rent land. In June 2010 the north west region of
Scotland (Shetland, Orkney, the Outer Hebrides, and Highlands) was home to 45,024 agricultural
holdings with crops and grass (Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture, 2011). It should also be
noted that while the average farm size in Arkansas is 23 times larger this number is somewhat
misleading. The standard deviation for Arkansas farm size is much greater given that of Scotland
because of the fact that 4,000 acre plus farms are common throughout the Delta. Grassroots
movements that exist to preserve the crofting way of life have also been successful in
maintaining a more equal distribution of land and income through the campaign for crofters’
rights. In 1976, as a result of the outcry by the Scottish Crofting Federation and other individual
crofters, the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act granted crofters the right to purchase the full title to
their crofts, allowing for a higher percentage of total land to be distributed more evenly
(Doughty, 1999).
Table 2. Gini coefficients for income inequality Scotland and Arkansas in 2000
Region
Gini Coefficient
Scotland
0.34
Arkansas
0.46
Source: Burkey, Mark L., and American Community Survey. Gini values for Delta counties in
2000; 2005-2007. 2010. Raw data. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, Madison, WI.
Source:
In contrast, the Arkansas Delta has experienced two distinct inflection points which
varied its binding constraints due to the end of slavery and advent of relatively expensive labor
and relatively cheap mechanization. Land was the binding constraint in the early 1800s before
the Civil War when slavery was becoming more prominent (US1). As the total percent
population of slaves in Arkansas rose from 11% in 1820 to 20% in 1840, the supply of cheap
labor increased (Bolton, 1982). This allowed plantation owners to devote more of their income to
buying/ consolidating land which led to the loosening of constraint on land (US2). The line in
Figure 2 labeled as (US2) shows that neither land nor labor was a binding constraint in this time
due to increases in productivity from artificially cheap labor, leading to increased profits which
allowed for more land purchases. That being said, after the end of the Confederacy which
theoretically freed thousands of slaves in the south, the price of labor increased due to mass
migration and an increasingly expensive labor supply. This resulted in a shortage in cheap labor
and thus a move towards mechanization on the larger farms (US3). The effects of binding
constraints are evident when comparing lines US2 and US3 in Figure 2. US2 is moving both
vertically and horizontally (improving output per person and per hectare) where US3 is moving
primarily in the horizontal direction of increasing output per person, implying a labor constraint.
The decrease in cheap labor (freed slaves) was further exacerbated by the mass emigrations
(reduced supply) from Arkansas as a result of the Great Migration. Since the Great Migrations
ended farms have continued to grow in size (land is not the binding constraint) and decrease in
frequency due to the labor constraint. The small, family farm is being replaced by mechanized,
monoculture farms in the Delta today. The current average farm size for Arkansas is 281 acres
(Table 1) (USDA, 2012). As of 1997, 60% of the total farm sales in the state were made by 7%
of the largest farms (Arkansas Public Policy Panel [APPP], 1999). 3Nearly every agricultural
sector in Arkansas followed this “economies of scale” trend from 1987 to 1997. The number of
poultry farmers decreased by 12%, but rose by 58% in average size. Rice farms decreased by
25%, but have seen a 78% average size increase. Cotton farms are down by 30%, but size has
increased by 160%. There is fewer than half the amount of hog farms existing, but the size of an
average hog operation has increased by 385%. There has been a 31% increase in corporate
farms, but a 9% drop in privately owned farms (APPP, 1999). These percentages are largely
driven by several factors including mechanization and farm subsidies which contribute to
mechanization. In 1997 the federal government gave out almost 1.5 billion dollars to farms, most
of it going to the largest operations. Farms of 2,000 acres or more received almost 14% of their
annual income in subsidies that year (APPP, 1999). The policy of the Government’s agricultural
subsidies has contributed to centralized, large-scale farming operations that now are prevalent in
the Delta. Mechanization has become the chosen route for most Delta farmers and labor
continues to be an inelastic supply in the area.
The historical constraints and their evolution have contributed to land and income
inequalities that still affect Arkansas today. These large farms are concentrated in the Delta as it
3
Given the lose definition of a farm and the fact that the state average includes many smaller farms in the north west
portion of the state the average Delta farm is inevitably much larger.
is the primary row and cash crop agricultural region in Arkansas. Table 3 illustrates the largest
15 Gini values for income inequality for all 75 counties in Arkansas in 2000.
Table 3. List of Delta county Gini values for income inequality in 2000.
Rank
County
Gini
Rank
County
Gini
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Chicot*
Lee*
Monroe*
Phillips*
Bradley
Dallas
Drew*
St. Francis*
53
51
51
51
50
50
50
50
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Woodruff
Cross*
Desha*
Fulton
Jackson
Stone
Carroll
50
49
49
49
49
49
48
*Denotes counties in the Arkansas Delta
Source: Burkey, Mark L., and American Community Survey. Gini values for Delta counties in
2000; 2005-2007. 2010. Raw data. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, Madison, WI.
Of the 15 highest Gini values for income distribution in Arkansas, 8 are located in Delta
counties. This exhibits a high level of income inequality in the Delta region which can be
partially attributed to large, mechanized farms resulting from how agriculture evolved in
Arkansas. Given the evolution of Arkansas agriculture the large farm size is ideal for
mechanization because of relatively high labor costs, which has reduced the labor needed to
produce goods, contributing to higher unemployment (and more income inequality), ceteris
paribus. This is illustrated by the fact that agriculture represented 10.4 percent of the total state
GDP in 2009 with a large portion of that going to the production of commodities which benefits
the land owners (McGraw, Popp and Miller, 2009). This means a majority of the income is held
by a few, wealthy farmers. Another factor that has influenced inequalities in Arkansas and in the
south as a whole today is the historic degree of slavery in the state. This theory is backed by
Figure 3 which illustrates the relationship between income inequality in the USA in 2000 and
percent of total population made up of slaves in 1860.
Figure 3. The relationship between slavery in 1860 and income in 2000 in the United States.
Source: Nunn, Nathan. "Slavery, Inequality, and Economic Development in the Americas: An
Examination of the Engerman-Sokoloff Hypothesis." The Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
Munich University Library, 21 Nov. 2007. Web.
It is clear that southern states (Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Georgia, etc.), those with a higher slave proportion in 1860, have the highest level of
income inequality in the country in 2000, suggesting that slavery has contributed to the
inequalities that permeate southern society today. This assertion is further supported by the fact
that in 1860 the southern states, the states with the highest numbers of slaves, had the highest
land inequality during that time (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Relationship between slavery in 1860 and land inequality in 1860.
Source: Nunn, Nathan. "Slavery, Inequality, and Economic Development in the Americas: An
Examination of the Engerman-Sokoloff Hypothesis." The Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
Munich University Library, 21 Nov. 2007. Web.
The relationship between land inequality in 1860 and income inequality in 2000 also
points to the continuation of inequalities in the south. Southern states with the most unequal land
distribution in 1860 also had the most unequal income in 2000 (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Relationship between land inequality in 1860 and income inequality in 2000.
Source: Nunn, Nathan. "Slavery, Inequality, and Economic Development in the Americas: An
Examination of the Engerman-Sokoloff Hypothesis." The Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
Munich University Library, 21 Nov. 2007. Web.
The relationship between the historic degree of slavery and land and income inequality in
the south points to the importance of the Induced Innovation Model in understanding the
evolution of agricultural systems. Land limitations, the original binding constraint in Arkansas,
encouraged investment in a cheap labor force (slaves) and fortified inequality that already
existed in the south. Although slavery, and the inequality that comes with it, is not the only factor
that contributed to the continuation of inequalities in Arkansas and the rest of the south, it is a
significant factor in the unequal distribution of income and land in the Delta today.
V.
Conclusion
Although it is undeniable that other factors have influenced the development of the agricultural
systems in the Arkansas Delta and the Scottish Highlands, it is clear that historic binding
agricultural constraints, the choice of investments, and economic inequalities have contributed to
the current agricultural systems in place today, particularly in terms of farm size.
As a result of analyzing both the Scottish Highlands and the Arkansas Delta with the
Induced Innovation Model it can be seen that the binding constraint for Scotland today remains
land and in the Delta, labor. The hypothesis that farm size in both regions evolved as a result of
the technological investments made to combat these constraints is supported by the chain of
historical events depicted in Figure 2. Scotland’s inelastic supply of land contributed to smaller
farm sizes because more focus was placed on maximizing output per unit of land rather than
output per worker. Land management technologies dominated investments in the Scottish
Highlands. In the Arkansas Delta the binding constraint is currently labor. Historical setting
again contributed to this outcome as investments in the 20th century were mainly related to
mechanization. This type of investment, however, was found to have only come to prominence
after the loss of the cheap labor (slaves) that occurred in the south. The variance in binding
constraints in Arkansas was an unanticipated discovery in this study. It is also important to note
that geography, population distribution, and government policy also had an effect on farm size
evolution.
The hypothesis that the investments which resulted from binding agricultural restraints
were found to contribute to the level of land and income inequality was supported when
comparing Scotland’s and Arkansas’ current Gini values and the correlation between the
historical presence of slavery and land and income inequality in the southern Unites States today.
The study found that the relatively small size and high frequency of crofts contributed to lower
levels of inequality today in comparison with Arkansas. It was also found that the crofters’ rights
initiatives that have occurred in the 20th century have served to aid in combatting higher values
of inequality in the Highlands today. This does not comment on the relative wealth of the
average Scottish citizen in farming communities in comparison to their Arkansas counterparts,
only that the wealth amongst them is more evenly distributed. In contrast, the large, mechanized
farms that developed in the Arkansas Delta were found to be a contributing factor in the current
high levels of land and income inequality today. Mechanization reduces the need for labor
inputs, which in turn can increase unemployment in the affected area. The study also found that
the greater the historical presence of slaves in a state, the greater the income inequality of that
state today.
The future study of this topic could be extensive. Data were difficult to obtain for the
specific areas of study (primarily Scotland due to the fact the United Kingdom did not
disaggregate Scotland in its census data until recent reports), but were easily found for the
country of origin. Other indicators of social and economic inequality should be explored to
minimize the weakness of any one index or model. This study contributes an argument that states
that historical setting, constraints, and investments have contributed to the current level of
inequalities and size of farms in the Scottish Highlands and the Arkansas Delta today.
Works Cited
Abrams, Lynn. "Work." Myth And Materiality in a Woman's World: Shetland 1800-2000.
Manchester: Manchester UP, 2005.
Argyll West and Islands. Perth: Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002. Scottish Natural Heritage. Web.
<http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A306372.pdf>.
Bolton, S. C. "Inequality on the Southern Frontier: Arkansas County in the Arkansas Territory."
The Arkansas Historical Quarterly 41.1 (1982): 51-66. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/40023373>.
Bolton, S. C. "Turning Point: World War II and the Economic Development of Arkansas." The
Arkansas Historical Quarterly 61.2 (2002): 123-51. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/40023212>.
Burkey, Mark L., and American Community Survey. Gini values for Delta counties in 2000;
2005-2007. 2010. Raw data. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, Madison, WI.
Catto, Gavin A. Land Use-- A Perspective From Scotland. The East of Scotland College of
Agriculture, 1973. Web.
<http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/17820/1/ar730093.pdf>.
Changes in Arkansas Agriculture. Rep. Arkansas Public Policy Panel, 19 Feb. 1999. Web.
<arpanel.org/content>.
Doughty, Steven W. Land Tenure and Crofting in Scotland. Rep. Orono: Department of Spatial
Information Science and Engineering- University of Maine, 1999. Print.
Foti, Thomas. "Geography and Geology." Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture. Central
Arkansas Library System. Web. 16 Dec. 2011.
<http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entrydetail.aspx?search=1&entryID=401>.
Goldman, Abe. "Agricultural Innovation in Three Areas of Kenya: Neo-Boserupian Theories and
Regional Characterization." Economic Geography 69.1 (1993): 44-71. JSTOR. Web.
<http://0-www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/143889>.
Gray, Malcolm. "The Abolition of Runrig in the Highlands of Scotland." The Economic History
Review 5.1 (1952): 46-57. JSTOR. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2591307 .>.
Grove, Wayne A., and Craig Heinicke. "Better Opportunities or Worse? The Demise of Cotton
Harvest Labor, 1949-1964." The Journal of Economic History 63.3 (2003): 736-67.
JSTOR. Web. <http://0-www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/3132306>.
Hance, William A. "Crofting in the Outer Hebrides." Economic Geography 28.1 (1952): 37-50.
JSTOR. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/141619>.
Harrison, Robert W., and Walter M. Kollmorgen. "Socio-Economic History of Cypress Creek
Drainage District and Related Districts of Southeast Arkansas." The Arkansas Historical
Quarterly 7.1 (1948): 20-52. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/40026216>.
Harvey, David. EuropAfrica Project. UK Food Group, Mar. 2006. Web.
<http://www.ukfg.org.uk/UK_CAP_casestudy.pdf>.
Hawkins, Van. "Sharecropping and Tenant Farming." Encyclopedia of Arkansas History &
Culture. Central Arkansas Library System, 10 Aug. 2011. Web.
<http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entrydetail.aspx?search=1&entryID=2103>.
Holland, John. History of Sheep Farming in the Highlands. Tech. Scottish Agricultural College.
Web. <http://www.sac.ac.uk/mainrep/pdfs/sheephighlands.pdf>.
Holley, Donald. "Leaving the Land of Opportunity: Arkansas and the Great Migration." The
Arkansas Historical Quarterly 64.3 (2005): 245-61. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/40028047>.
Hughes, J. T. "Policy Analysis in the Highlands and Islands Development Board." The Journal
of Operational Research Society 33.12 (1982): 1055-064. JSTOR. Web.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2581145>.
Knox, W. W. "Poverty, Income and Wealth in Scotland 1840-1940." A History of the Scottish
People. SCRAN. Web. <http://www.scran.ac.uk/scotland/pdf/SP2_5Income.pdf>.
Leathers, Howard D., and Phillips Foster. The World Food Problem: Tackling Causes of
Undernutrition in the Third World. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2004. Print.
Logie, Derek. Houses on Crofting Land. A Study into Meeting Housing Needs in the Crofting
Areas. Scottish Crofting Federation, 2007. Web.
<http://www.crofting.org/uploads/news/houses-on-croft-land.pdf>.
Lovett, Bobby L. "African Americans, Civil War, and Aftermath in Arkansas." The Arkansas
Historical Quarterly 54.3 (1995): 304-58. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/40030945>.
Mackenzie, Alexander. The History of the Highland Clearances. Aberdeen: UP, 1883.
McGraw, Katherine, Jennie Popp, and Wayne Miller. Economic Contribution of the Agricultural
Sector to the Arkansas Economy in 2009. Rep. Fayetteville: Arkansas Agricultural
Experiment Station, 2009. Print.
Moneyhon, Carl H. "Slavery." Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture. 2011. Web.
<http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1275>.
Nunn, Nathan. "Slavery, Inequality, and Economic Development in the Americas: An
Examination of the Engerman-Sokolo." The Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Munich
University Library, 21 Nov. 2007. Web. <http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/5869/2/MPRA_paper_5869.pdf>.
Padget, Martin. "An Iconography of Difference: Internal Colonialism, Photography, and the
Crofters of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland." College Literatre 20.2 (1993): 17795. JSTOR. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112037 .>.
Phillips, William H. "Cotton Gin." EH.net Encyclopedia. Economic History Association, 1 Feb.
2010. Web. <http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/phillips.cottongin>.
Ransom, Roger L. "The Economics of the Civil War." EH.net Encyclopedia. Economic History
Association, 1 Feb. 2010. Web. <http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us>.
Rohde, Richard F. "Written on the Surface of the Soil: West Highland Crofting Landscapes of
Scotland during the Twentieth Century." Repeat Photography: Methods and Applications
in the Natural Sciences (2010): 247-64. Scottish Crofting Federation. Web.
<http://www.crofting.org/uploads/news/repeat_photography.pdf>.
"Rooted in Our Communities." Scottish Crofting Federation. 2012. Web.
<http://www.crofting.org/>.
Ruttan, Vernon W., and Yujiro Hayami. "Induced Innovation Model of Agricultural
Development." Ed. Carl K. Eicher and John M. Staatz. International Agricultural
Development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 1998. 163-78. Print.
Ruttan, Vernon W. "Models of Agricultural Development." Ed. Carl K. Eicher and John M.
Staatz. International Agricultural Development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP,
1998. 155-62. Print.
Sampietro, M. L., O. Lao, D. Caramelli, M. Lari, R. Pou, M. Marti, J. Bertranpetit, and C.
Lalueza-Fox. "Palaeogenetic Evidence Supports a Dual Model of Neolithic Spreading
into Europe." Proceedings: Biological Sciences 274.1622 (2007): 2161-167. JSTOR.
Web. <http://0-www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/25249305>.
Scotland. Income Distribution in Scotland. By Sara Grainger and Sandy Stewart. The Scottish
Government. Web. 2007. <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/933/0097341.pdf>.
Spencer, J. E., and Norman R. Stewart. "The Nature of Agricultural Systems." Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 63.4 (1973): 529-44. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/2562058>.
Stein, Gil. Teaching the Middle East. The University of Chicago Library, 29 Dec. 2010. Web.
<http://teachmiddleeast.lib.uchicago.edu/foundations/origins-of-civilization/essay/essay02.html>.
Stroud, Hubert B. "Mississippi Alluvial Plain." Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture.
Central Arkansas Library System. Web. 23 Jan. 2012.
<http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entrydetail.aspx?search=1&entryID=444>.
Turnock, David. "Evolution of Farming Patterns in Lochaber." Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 41 (1967): 145-58. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/621332>.
Turnock, David. "Regional Development in the Crofting Counties." Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers 48 (1969): 189-204. JSTOR. Web.
<http://http://www.jstor.org/stable/621498>.
United States. United States Census Bureau. Eighth US Census. United States Census Bureau,
1860. Print.
United States. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. State Fact
Sheets: Arkansas. United States Department of Agriculture, 17 Jan. 2012. Web.
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/AR.HTM>.
Venkataramani, M. S. "Norman Thomas, Arkansas Sharecroppers, and the Roosevelt
Agricultural Policies, 1933-1937." The Arkansas Historical Quarterly 24.1 (1965): 3-28.
JSTOR. Web. <http://0-www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/40023962>.
Whatley, Warren C. "Southern Agrarian Labor Contracts as Impediments to Cotton
Mechanization." The Journal of Economic History 47.1 (1987): 45-70. JSTOR. Web.
<http://0-www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/2121939>.
Whayne, Jeannie M. "The Power of the Plantation Model: The Sunk Lands Controversy." Forest
& Conservation History 37.2 (1993): 56-67. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/3983877>.
WIID Verson 2.0c. Rep. Helsinki: United Nations University World Institute for Development
Economics Research, 1995. UNU-WIDER World Income Inequality Database (WIID).
Web. <http://http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/Database/en_GB/wiid/>.
Williams, C. F. "Agriculture." Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture. Central Arkansas
Library System. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.
<http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entrydetail.aspx?search=1&entryID=385>.
Woodruff, Nan E. "Mississippi Delta Planters and Debates over Mechanization, Labor, and Civil
Rights in the 1940s." The Journal of Southern History 60.2 (1994): 263-84. JSTOR. Web.
<http://0-www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/2210085>.
Xu, Kuan. "How Has the Literature on Gini’s Index Evolved in the Past 80 Years?" The Munich
Personal RePEc Archive. The Munich University Library, 2 Dec. 2004. Web.
<http://economics.dal.ca/RePEc/dal/wparch/howgini.pdf>.
Yard, Alexander. ""They Dont Regard My Rights at All": Arkansas Farm Workers, Economic
Modernization, and the Southern Tenant Farmers Union." The Arkansas Historical
Quarterly 47.3 (1988): 201-29. JSTOR. Web. <http://0www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/40021338>.